Bigfoot is people! At least that’s according to a new five-year study of the creatures purported DNA by a prominent Bigfootologist. “Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry,” reads a statement released last weekend by former veterinarian Melba T. Ketchum, the lead researcher of the study. “Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago.” Yes, that would mean that Bigfoot is more man-ape than ape-man. However as the hominids are notoriously reclusive, if not entirely fictional — there has never been a single confirmed sighting — it’s unclear whether we will need to extend an invitation to our Sasquatch relatives for Easter brunch.

For her study, Ketchum “sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain three whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples.” As her team interpreted their findings, the Sasquatch is a human hybrid with mitochondrial DNA identical to human mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA that is of “novel,” or non-human, sequence. To hark back to high school biology for a moment: mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, while nuclear DNA mixes genetic material from both parents. That means that according to Ketchum’s study, Sasquatch’s parents were a human female and some unknown third species, a “novel non-human” male.

At this point it’s probably important to note that the study has not yet been peer reviewed and Ketchum has thus far refused to release her data, explain her methodology or say where she got the “Sasquatch DNA samples” in the first place. Also, according to Houston Chronicle science writer Eric Borger, Ketchum has credibility issues of her own: her company, DNA Diagnostics, has received more than two dozen customer complaints and gets an F from the Better Business Bureau. Oh, and those mysterious third-species males who were supposedly picking up human women on some kind of proto-Craigslist? According to a blogger and Bigfoot enthusiast named Robert Lindsay, earlier drafts of Ketchum’s study claimed they were angels.

The scientific community remains, unsurprisingly, dubious.”The bottom line is this,” Yale neurologist Steven Novella wrote at NeuroLogica Blog: “Human DNA plus some anomalies or unknowns does not equal an impossible human-ape hybrid. It equals human DNA plus some anomalies.”

For her part Ketchum, a Texas veterinarian who claims among her bona fides “27 years of research in genetics, including forensics,” wants Sasquatch to be immediately afforded civil liberties and protected by state and federal governments as an indigenous people. “Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry. Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a ‘license’ to hunt, trap, or kill them,” she writes. We guess that would exclude a blimp hunt.

That the eye witnesses are "crazy or hoaxers ?" Does science always have to be the equation to confirm belief?

People believe in God....yet no one has "seen" him or her if you will and there is no scientific proof God exists...but we keep looking for him every day, searching and praying.....and we do not get laughed at when we say we believe in God.....

Yet miracles happen every day, unexplained.

There are many things out there that will always remain unexplained....but it does not mean they do not exist.

Bigfoot is one of those things.

Also....food for thought......recently a whole new separate species of Gorillas were found in the African Congo....we never knew they existed and they were right under our own noses.

The Congo is very dense,nasty, jungle, which still to this day remains unexplored as well as many of it's species not discovered or listed on the fossil record.

For another example....the Congo "Tiger Fish" is also a recent discovery.

There are parts of the world still left unexplored ....like Papua New Guinea......most all of it's native wildlife species are uncatalogued and remain unknown .

Yet, the tribes folks tell stories of them outsiders do not believe....just like the Rwanda African tribes once told stories of the "hairy ape man of the mountains ".....which later ....when researchers decided to go prove the stories true.....they discovered Gorillas...and also the reason it took so long for their discovery.....the environment where they thrived was inhospitable and inaccessible to people most of the year.

It may surprise most people to know in America there still exists wild , unknown and inaccessible places humans rarely venture...

One of these places exits right outside of Seattle , Washington.....a state that has more wilderness than people and other than it's 2 major cities remains sparsely populated.

A state an infamous 1970's hijacker....D.B. Cooper jumped out of a 747 and vanished, nothing.....of him ever found....just some old eroded money decades later was the only footprint he left that he ever existed.

If a human can vanish out into the wilderness without ever being found....this happens more than we like to think....than so could a Bigfoot..and they may only leave behind an occasional foot print.

Native Americans have known of Bigfoot for thousands of years.....and it is often through folklore that some species are discovered....like the Gorilla, The rare Japanese Giant Salamander,the Panda, silicanth (prehistoric fish thought extinct found alive in 1930).

The Chinese already believe and have confirmed scientific evidence of the "URIN" a Bigfoot creature of the Chinese mountain ranges,which has received Government protection as an rare species of homid-ape.

No one in China is laughing when someone says they saw a Urin.....because they took the time to launch a scientific expedition to find the Creature and prove it exists knowing there is always a nugget of truth in folklore when it comes to unknown species.

When are we going to stop laughing and making fun of others and seriously investigate the real possibility that something is out there in our woods....and it is not a crumby bear, mistaken identity, hoaxers, jokers.....or due to some nutcase ?

Thousands of reports worldwide can not be wrong.....

and many skeptics say there is no evidence of Bigfoot.....yet for them no evidence would ever be enough...

For the rest of us....evidence does already exist.....in a famous primatologist's office .......hair , foot prints....and one 1967 film proved to be real......due to the fact it was proven not to be a man in a suit..... because muscles are seen moving under the skin....found when Patterson film was under intense scrutiny.

The question remains : Do you believe ? Is fear of the unknown masked in mockery keeping you in doubt because that walk in the woods may not be as safe as you like to think ?

I cannot believe that a respectable news magazine would think this nonsense worth reporting. In paragraph 3 it is admitted that the "researcher" has done nothing at all to substantiate her far-fetched claims, so there is no reason at all to believe anything she says is true. Real science is about openness - e.g. how the data was obtained, what tests were run, and so on. Refusal to answer any questions about her data or to provide any evidence is a mark of pseudoscience. What this story amounts to is that a crackpot has made wild claims that she cannot substantiate and naturally real scientists do not believe her. The sensational title of this article gives this foolishness the appearance of credibility that it in no way deserves and instead contributes to spreading misinformation. If I started claiming that I have found incontrovertible proof that humans are descended from extra-terrestrials who still regularly visit our planet, but refused to say how I obtained this information would that be considered news? "Crazy man makes lunatic claims, but no-one believe him" isn't newsworthy, and neither is this article.

I am so sick of Bigfoot...how many times have we heard of some expert who has all of the answers and it is going to prove to everyone "just wait." Well I am still waiting. This is not going to go anywhere and people are going to claim to have seen Bigfoot but still with no pictures.

What is crazy is everyone has a camera on their phone in their pocket and still no Bigfoot pictures, just some crappy video from 1967.

When I posted the link to this article, on Facebook, it came up with the wording: "Bigfoot Is Part Human, and Here Are the DNA Tests to Prove It, Claims Woman". Whereas, here-- at the top of this page,--she is referred to as "Researcher". Who is responsible for the copy change? That person clearly needs some more training. I don't care how questionable the science is or isn't... identifying her work on your public-access web interface purely by her gender like that is not only disrespectful to the Researcher involved, it is publicly disrespectful to ALL women. Damn outrageous, Time Magazine! You might want to fix that, asap, because it reflects on you, ultimately.

Why do people have to make fun of things they no nothing about, wait til the paper comes out and then sling some mud? Why do the journalist have to be disrespectful and make fun of the people just doing their work? Why do people have to make fun of the remote possibility of Sasqaucth being real? Oh I know, because most people have no respect for others, they wanna make themselves look big and smarter than the next person, oh and becuase your mother did rise you right and you are poor excuse for a humanbeing. I know that sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. But seriously, everyone is making fun of something they have read the results, wait, read, and then make your decision to be a jack%^&. Have some manners, please.

Scientist are finding new species of animals in the ocean all the time what is your excuse for that because it the same thing and anyone thats ever been in the wood for any ammount of time knows that you can be thirty yards for something and never have the slightest idea its there even twenty...you can be driving down the road and have a deer run out in front of you and hit it with your car and it messes up your car but that deers still running did you have the time to get a picture of it????No you didnt because if you did you wouldnt have hit it...

1cicle, I really like your post and agree with it. I pressed the Like button & it came up as Unlike; I don't understand.

My thing is -- I'd expect science writers to show some objectivity instead of just writing what is expected of them and popular. By now, I might accept the intentional blindness of the "No Evidence" crowd. But I don't. The media caters to them shamelessly.

This is one of the dumbest articles. The original video put out was shot down when one of the men who put it together came out saying it was fake. Another thing, with today's technologies, including everybody's cell phones, we've yet to get a clear video and/or picture of one of these things? We've yet to find bones? We've yet to find remains? Pleeeeeeeeeeze already.

I am pretty sure she will make this newsfeed eat their words and put them in the same sentence as "uninformed" and "no respect". Don't worry she will have the last laugh, all the people that want to sling mud is about to be stunned. Just no respect anymore for anyone else. No wonder I do not by these people's magazine anymore.

I am the greatest worldwide killer and consumer of bigfoot in history! That's why one cant be found...

seriously, just about everyone has some kind of camera/recording device with them these days - we get images of everything from horrific crime to the Duchess's boobs; but somehow a 10 foot tall, two legged, wild animal can avoid detection? I don't stink so!

There are so many libels in this piece I'd be very surprised if you don't get sued. Ketchum has some seriously wealthy backers and a credible career in DNA forensics. She worked on identifying the World Trade Center victims and is more than qualified to design the DNA primers for a new species.

I know where most of your information came from. One is regarded as a harmless lunatic who is obsessed by 'angels' and the other sees his blimp project funding vanish unless he can sink his rival fast.

I am appalled at your lack of basic editorial fact checking standards. You should have uncovered this information within 20 minutes on Google.

The BBB trouble is the only factually correct criticism, and was due to delayed results after Doctor Ketchum had to contract out some of her routine work, while busy with the new hominin DNA. If you had spoken to Dr Ketchum before running this hatchet job, you would have known that.

You should also know there is the 'Sykes' paper in the works. He confirms Ketchum so far as the new North American hominin species is concerned, but differs as to his opinion of their origin. If you legitimately wanted to criticise Dr Ketchum, this question of hybridization would have been the thing.

If I were you, I'd be printing a retraction and an apology just as fast as I could. You have been seriously wrong-footed here and will be grovelling for interviews with both of these teams soon enough.

Sorry was so mad misspelled sexiest. You people have no manners and hunt a bigfoot. Would you like it if someone claimed open season on your family? So what she is a woman, bet she do the job 10 times better than any man out there. I am going to love to see you apologize when this all comes out. This organization is to mean and dosen't deserve my attention.

Open season on Bigfoot? What and be sexiest against a woman professional scientist. I sure hope that Dr. Ketchum takes you to the cleaners when this is all said and done. Laugh now, we will see who is laughing next.

This is one of the most sexist titles ever. TIME would never attempt to discredit a fringe male scientist with "Claims Man." Sure, Ketchum's work is beyond dubious, but that does not justify institutional sexism from a major media source.

@ScottAMcGreal The "News" here is that there is a study and its being reviewed. The details of the study are not being released AT THIS TIME. This does not mean the items you want are not in the study, they are just not in this report. The report is still being reviewed and IF it gets published then you will have answers or questions. This only came out due to leaks on the study. This is a pre-emtive story about the study, not the study. Got it?

@MarkLawson I don't think its insulting to doubt her results. New scientific findings should always be met with skepticism and peer review, remember, supporting scientific theories starts with the null hypothesis. Questions should be encouraged; if this is true, it will prove true in independent laboratories. And there is plenty of room for questions, for example, why hasn't this been published in anything peer reviewed? Obviously there is interest in publishing it, I would buy a copy of the article. But then I routinely work with hmtDNA, and it is abundant wherever humans shed epithelial cells (skin, feces) and contamination is relatively easy given the sensitivity of PCR. Until her data is critically reviewed I say BS. Show me cells with mtDNA that aligns to humans and nuclear DNA that does not and it passes my litmus test, show me an animal tissue extract contaminated with human waste or skin cells and it does not. Occam's razor: what is more likely, a hominid-like creature sharing the forests but able to elude capture or even decent visual documentation for hundreds of years, or a contaminated animal sample from a veterinarian?

You are so right they are finding life in the depths of the ocean where we know next to nothing and have done almost no exploration. Yet there is a large primate in North America where tens of thousands of hunters for the last 200 years have been walking around shooting animals with guns yet we still have no real proof of it existing.

Your argument of the newly discovered ocean life I feel proves Bigfoot to be false becuase by your statment if we find life where we spend so little time how have we not found a creature we have been searching for so intently.

Please dont tell me they are super inteligent and they are able to hide...they would wear pants if they were so smart!

@asdfghk and those scientists have these on clear video, capture samples, etc............Those scientists don't have a blur. When a deer hits your car there will be blood and hair actually left on your car. Scientists have yet to clearly supply any from a bigfoot. They 'claim' they have yet have yet to. How do they know it's from bigfoot? If you've never captured or found a bigfoot there would be know way that you could tell by the DNA of the hair. With the many times supposedly said of bigfoot standing there staring at us, I do believe there could be a picture taken.

@JeriseNewton - Me too. But we also have to be healthy skeptics. I suspect Melba Ketchum has a publication date already scheduled, but just in case she does not, we should demand a deadline. I give her until the end of 2013 to make the data public.

So produce the suit. I'd like to see how the internal musculature was done. It would be an impressive technical achievement even now. In 67, phenomenal. Way beyond what Hollywood had. Also the arm and leg proportions, did your source ever mention how joint articulation at unnatural proportion was achieved in 67? These days it is all animatronics of course.

You might want to produce the faker too. I understand there are several claiming to be 'the guy in the suit'.

@_1cicle_ Really? Sykes confirms what Ketchum claims? Where'd ya hear that one? Talk about misinformation that causes people to get the wrong idea. So far there is nothing published to support any of what Ketchum says, nor what you said. If you want to complain about objectivity, start with your own posts.

Until a paper is published, or until Ketchum makes her data and methods available, there is nothing to review or consider other than an unsubstantiated story. Anyone can write a press release like that, or rather, a story like that. Complete with slick, sciencey sounding details.

So far everything about this "study" has gotten way too much press and attention. Not long ago there were stories about a Yeti being captured in Russia. It was all the news. It was a hoax. More recently there was a similar story about a scientist in Russia that claimed to have DNA proof too. Turns out once he started naming the institutions that supposedly did the DNA work, they all claimed it was a hoax, that the guy was crazy. Deja vu? And what hasn't been publicized by these supposedly sensationalist news media are the claims that Dr. Ketchum has been visiting with groups of sasquatches frequently, even communicating with them, even telepathically. There are always people that go off the deep end for whatever reason. Until something tangible turns up, like the actual report, or answers to some simple, basic questions concerning her work, this is nothing more than a dramatic, sensationalist story with no more substance than Kim Kardashian's latest blunder.

Sorry, no evidence, no samples, no bodies, no specimens, no photos, no videos, no bigfoot. And since there's currently no report, that kind of seals the deal.

@Amleth Haha. It looks like they've had to make a few changes. The editor must have been on a coffee break when this went to press, but it looks like they returned and brought the lawyer with them. It is one thing to suspect malice, but the original version proved it comprehensively.

What's the law in the US about repeating a libel? Is it sufficient to say you were lied to yourself? Probably not if it can be show you had mischief aforethought. "Claims woman" would do that.

"Your argument of the newly discovered ocean life I feel proves Bigfoot
to be false becuase by your statment if we find life where we spend so
little time how have we not found a creature we have been searching for
so intently" Really? How much funding and Scientific research has been done? My idiot alarm is going off. Spell check is a good tool, it is free and on this site and yet you do not use it. (It is easier to prove your lack of intelligence or laziness)

How much time have you spent in the woods at night looking for a nocturnal creature that wants to remain hidden? Humans like to shoot things first and ask questions later.... So if there is a surviving nocturnal relative: they would be smart and very good at avoiding us (we destroy and feel the need to conquer). Ever been hunting? Most have A) been drinking B) don't hunt at night when they are active. How does your cell phone camera shoot at night? Awesome I bet.

Are you trully impressed by that video? To me it looks like a video made by some guys in an ape suit in 1967. You really dont think someone could put together that crappy video like that with a few hundred bucks?

@Dachman Look at the steadied video where you can see muscles rippling...... You may be surprised by the details you think is a suit from the 1960's. Look at Hollywood "special effects" of the time period. That Godzilla suit looks so REAL.

Come on. It is an easy question. If someone wore that suit, they will know the answer. You can get all three suit wearers to rattle on for hours, for the price of a beer, yet not one of them can tell you how the articulation and muscle movement were achieved.

Which they would know had they ever worn a patty suit. Ergo, they did not.

@MikeRushing@icemaiden07 They already have people with two heads. They are conjoined twins. It is a rarity but it happens in other animals also. I don't think it exists in a northern climate because of the food requirements for an animal like ourselves. It would have to be able to hunt and we would see the proof in the dead carcasses and bones left behind. It would most likely have to care for its young like we do. If their is such an animal I would look for it in tropical rain forests first and maybe northern rain forests like Vancouver Island. Places like Siberia probably have species we haven't seen before but just like northern Canada it would have a problem hunting, breeding and a need to live in groups like ourselves.

@MikeRushing@icemaiden07 And nothing will convince you to reexamine the film and what is being brought up. Also your limited knowledge on actual evidence seems to be limited to a 1980 google search. Explain: Dermal ridges, hair, scat, other videos.....

@icemaiden07 Evidently nothing is going to convince you that the film is fake. Here we are 45 years later and with all of the technology this world has, all that is out there is a cheap video made by a conman. Did you know I saw a man looking thing but he had two heads. I don't have any proof of it tho. How much you want to bet I could have thousands believing me and seeing the same thing in a few years?